Bryce Mitchell: “I honestly think that Hitler was a good guy”

“He fought for his country, he wanted to purify it by kicking the greedy jews out that were destroying his country that were turning them all into gays”

🎥 ArkanSanity Podcast pic.twitter.com/mjoe33nQix

— ACD MMA (@acdmma_) January 30, 2025

On his redpilled podcast, UFC fighter Bryce Mitchell, who is known as a top patriot, dropped big time redpills on the audience when he explained that Adolf Hitler was actually good and simply trying to rid his country of woke faggots and trannies and the greedy Jews who supported them.

“I honestly think Hitler was a good guy,” Mitchell said accurately.

He went on to say that he would have enjoyed fishing with the German patriot.

Woke kikes became very triggered by these factual statements, condemning the patriot fighter for telling the truth.

.@UFC fighter Bryce Mitchell somehow managed to be antisemitic, homophobic and transphobic in the span of a few minutes. He actually manages to praise Hitler for attempting to “purify” Germany of Jews while also denying the mass extermination of 6 million Jews during the… pic.twitter.com/M9Ssi7NWCr

— ADL (@ADL) January 30, 2025

Someone needs to inform the woke kikes that facts don’t care about their worthless Jew feelings.

Mitchell has been a prominent patriot warrior for a long time, and once appeared on Tucker Carlson to defend the patriot leader Vladimir Putin from attacks by woke trannies.

Many are now getting redpilled on the truth about Hitler and the stupid hoax called “the Holocaust” which was promoted by bluepilled kikes and is a total lie no different from the discredited gender ideology which Hitler crushed.

For example, top redpilled American-Africans, the Hodge Twins, shared Mitchell’s statements about Hitler and asked their audience if it was true.

Is Bryce Mitchell right or wrong about Hitler? @ThugnastyMMA pic.twitter.com/QlZ0muTFAB

— Hodgetwins (@hodgetwins) January 31, 2025

Hitler said that his ghost would rise from the grave and the world would know he was right, and that is now happening.

Unfortunately, Dana White was forced to read out a hostage statement, but he also said it was free speech and there won’t be any punishment for Bryce.

This is Dana White’s full statement addressing the retarded remarks UFC fighter Bryce Mitchell made about how he thought Hitler did right by trying to murder all the Jews and “purify” Germany. pic.twitter.com/6JeK4E70dN

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) January 30, 2025

Frankly, that statement is not really that bad. He made a point that he was reading a statement someone else wrote for him and then got really goofy when condemning him, while also saying he can say whatever he wants.

We are opening up the window here.

We are on the verge of something wonderful.

There is chaos in the world, and this means victory or complete doom.

Either way, the current age is coming to an end.

God bless Bryce Mitchell for getting the most important issue of all into the public consciousness.

And may God have mercy on America.

Now that references to men are removed from the anthem, we can finally be equal.

How fitting; a country entirely centered around pleasing brown people will see its national anthem feminized. I guess Canada will finally free itself from the oppressive grips of the patriarchy.

The Guardian:

Canada’s national anthem is set to become gender neutral, bringing an end to a decades-long push to ensure the English language version reflects all Canadians.

Senators passed legislation on Wednesday that will change the second line of the anthem from “in all thy sons command” to “in all of us command”. Once the legislation is given royal assent by the governor general, the tweak will become law.

The full line is “True patriot love in all thy sons command.”

Implying women can be patriotic…

The very idea of “patriotic women” kind of gives you a feeling of cognitive dissonance. Patriotism is obviously something reserved for men, whose duty extends beyond their lives and families, and to the protection of the tribe and nation.

Extending the concept of “patriotism” to women is an insult to the countless men who died in wars defending the nation – because women aren’t asked to die on battlefields.

The change has been more than three decades in the making, said Canadian senator Frances Lankin. “This may be small – it’s about two words – but it’s huge in terms of one of our major national symbols. It’s inclusivity and I’m proud.”

It’s hugely humiliating, I’ll grant you that.

Amid bitter debate over the issue, the bill had been stalled for 18 months as Conservatives argued that all Canadians should be consulted in the matter. “This is an issue for the Canadian public to decide not just a couple of independent senators,” Senator Don Plett told the CBC.

Recent decades have seen 12 bills introduced in the House of Commons aimed at ridding the anthem of gendered language. The French language version uses different lyrics and does not include the same line.

The original French version is actually way more badass, and significantly more “problematic.” It’s surprising they haven’t yet changed it.

Here’s a literal translation:

O Canada!
Land of our ancestors
Glorious deeds circle your brow
For your arm knows how to wield the sword
Your arm knows how to carry the cross;
Your history is an epic
Of brilliant deeds
And your valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights,
Will protect our homes and our rights.

Under the eye of God, near the giant river,
The Canadian grows hoping.
He was born of a proud race,
Blessed was his birthplace.

DEUS VULT!

It’s no wonder the cucked anglos removed all references to our ancestors, race, the sword and the cross. You wouldn’t want Jews and hajis feeling unwelcome.

The whole thing is full of references to race, honor, Christianity and battle. In contrast, the English version talks about geography:

O Canada! Where pines and maples grow.
Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow.
How dear to us thy broad domain,
From East to Western sea.

What’s with this retarded obsession with landscape features? This is the same drive that made them adopt this abomination as the national flag:

A fucking leaf!

This is the prototype for the modern conception that a nation is just a patch of dirt on which people live. If that’s the case, then it makes sense the national anthem and flag should be mostly about the dirt itself, rather than a race of people.

The idea began to gain traction in 2013 after a group of prominent Canadian women, including author Margaret Atwood and former prime minister Kim Campbell, took on the issue.

They argued that the anthem had once been gender neutral – using the phrase “thou dost in us command” – but had been changed to include the word sons in 1913.

“Restoring these lyrics to gender-neutral is not only an easy fix to make our anthem inclusive for all Canadians, but it’s also long overdue,” Atwood said at the time. On Thursday, Atwood expressed her delight on Twitter over the bill’s passage.

All this, of course, is purely a show of dominance by Canadian skanks, who obviously couldn’t care less about the words of a century-old song.

As the various minorities gain more power and influence in Canada, you can be sure they’ll lobby to clean up the French version of the anthem as well, removing all references to religion and race – or simply making it about their favorite desert demons instead.

And the flag?

It goes without saying.

I can almost hear the snickers and jeers over the title of this article, from left and right alike.

For those who think the idea that the Alt-Right is the only true representative of American Nationalism is far-fetched, here is my challenge to you:

Show me where I am wrong.

Show me how the Founding Fathers weren’t race realists.

Show me how America wasn’t a White Patriarchy prior to 1920.

Show me where the Founding Fathers said women should have the right to vote.

Show me where the Founding Fathers said blacks should have full citizenship.

It’s really rather simple:

We, the Alt-Right, are White Nationalists, and we want to reinstate the Patriarchy.

America was founded – in the words of the ever-insightful Fash McQueen – as “a moral, patriarchal, limited-franchise Republic. – A White Ethno-State.”

The traditional family was seen as the backbone of the nation and was revered above all else.

Women were considered property. They were taught to obey their husbands and that their world was exclusively home, hearth, and family. They were not to hold office, vote or mix in the meetings of men or public affairs in any capacity. Sluttery was seen as an unforgivable sin.

Women were cherished for this; they were not oppressed. In fact – without any room for debate – they were much happier back then when they were fulfilling this sacred and natural role than they are now after having allegedly been “liberated.”

Here are a few quotes from the most important and celebrated Founding Father of all, Thomas Jefferson:

“Women, who to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men.”

“A lady who has been seen as a sloven or slut in the morning will never efface the impression she has made.”

(To his daughter on her wedding day): “The happiness of your life now depends on the continuing to please a single person. To this all other objects must be secondary, even your love for me.”

Anti-America is a codeword for anti-White.

Jefferson was horrified by seeing women in public roles while visiting France, where liberalism had been birthed and then unleashed in a fury after the Revolution of 1789. He wrote to Washington that this meant that France was in a “desperate state” and that fortunately, for the happiness of men and women alike, this phenomenon did not “extend itself” to America as well.

Unfortunately, the words he wrote in the Declaration of Independence would later be twisted from their original meaning and used to justify that which he was staunchly against:

“All men are created equal.”

Those five words, without a doubt, have been the most devastatingly consequential words in our entire history.

Both the suffragettes movement, which began in earnest in 1848 at the infamous Seneca Falls Convention and ended after winning women the right to vote in 1920, and the Negro “civil rights” movements borrowed heavily from Jefferson’s Declaration – but the historical record speaks loud and clear on what his views on these matters actually were.

Idealistic liberals and outright enemies of America have blatantly twisted Jefferson’s seemingly abstract words – as well as the words of other Founding Fathers – to push their own agendas.

This is not the Founders’ fault, and given that these agendas run counter to American history and American interests, they are on their face an insult to these very men who are cited as their justification.

The 1848 Seneca Falls “Declaration of Sentiments” quotes Jefferson virtually word for word, and then dishonestly applies it to women.

The above-stated views on women have only been overturned recently, really only since the second wave of feminism took off in the 60s.

For a while, those who still held these views were ridiculed for being “old-fashioned.” Now that liberalism has so thoroughly taken hold, those of us who still hold these views – which, again, are the same as the Founding Fathers – are called “radicals.” “Extremists,” even.

What these views really are are normal. They are American. They are White.

The Founders were staunch proponents of Western Civilization (i.e. White Civilization). All of their political ideas were formulated around what they thought was the best way to proceed with and advance Western Civilization while giving people as much freedom as possible and also keeping them morally upright and industrious.

As liberal policies based on “equality” are now clearly destroying Western Civilization, it stands to reason that the Founding Fathers would be on our side fighting against them, despite whatever abstract quotes can be cherry-picked from them to try and justify said civilization-wrecking policies.

They were not malicious people. They really did want freedom for all, to the best extent that that is possible.

What they certainly would’ve never stood for, though, is freedom for others, at the expense of their own.

With that in mind, we can safely say that any abstract ideas found among them – and there are some – about freeing blacks and then bringing them up to our level are now irrelevant, because the data is in and it shows that this is not possible and that even attempting to do so severely harms whites.

And for every one statement of an early American Founder pondering the possibility of peacefully integrating blacks that can be found – and these were just ideas, nothing close to freeing or integrating blacks en masse was ever practiced in their time – one could readily find a hundred saying that this would never work and that they must be removed.

We can debate over which aspects of America’s founding ideology were flawed, and some of it without a doubt was, but what is not debatable is that America was set up for the ‘posterity’ of the Founders and the white founding stock that settled, conquered and built it.

Race was the binding force of early America. One of the first acts of Congress, the Naturalization Act of 1790, restricted immigration and citizenship to “free white persons of good character.”

By fighting to protect the well-being of the white stock of America, we on the Alt-Right are merely carrying on what the Founders tilled, toiled, fought and bled for – while those who are not with us are complicit in throwing it all away.

The amount of broken homes of white families of the innocent victims who have been raped, murdered and maimed by black and other non-white criminals among us is absolutely heartwrenching once you become aware of the statistics, which are actively covered up by our alien-occupied media and academia.

The Alt-Right is aware of these ugly racial realities, and we just want to put an end to them, yet for this we are called evil “haters.”

We’re not allowed to say these things in polite society because it might hurt the feelings of non-whites.

That is the reality of the feminized, liberalized and Judaized system and society we now find ourselves living under.

It wants us silenced. It wants us dead, even, simply because we tell the truth.

But we’re not going to be silent, and we’re not going to back down because we know that what we are doing is right.

Innocent whites raped and murdered by non-whites by the tens of thousands annually is what is truly evil to us, and no amount of epithets is ever going to intimidate us into denying that.

We know for a fact now that blacks are incapable of functioning in civilization. They are only capable of destroying it. Therefore we want them out. We want to send them back, regardless if it hurts their feelings.

That is the mature, adult way to handle this.

That’s how the hard men who initially built this nation would’ve handled it.

Just go ask the Indians – if you can find any.

Our government is now anti-white, meaning it is unAmerican. We, the people, therefore have the right and the duty to fight to take it back so it will again serve our interests, as it was originally intended.

This anti-white/unAmerican nature of our society is more transparent now than ever. Black sportsball players who get paid millions of dollars to throw a ball around are purposefully disrespecting our National Anthem – and they’re being celebrated in the media for it. Meanwhile, those of us who have been trying to protect the toppling of our historical statues and monuments, in Charlottesville and elsewhere, are being aggressively demonized and persecuted from all angles.

And while the Alt-Right is being censored and shut down at an alarming rate, the so-called “right-wing” in America is doing virtually nothing to support us, and in many cases is even joining the ranks of our enemies in opposition to us.

At least the liberals, Jews, blacks and other anti-whites who are actively tearing down our statues and monuments and disrespecting the National Anthem and American Flag instinctively, if not consciously, realize that an attack on America is an attack on White people in general.

That’s why they’re attacking America in the first place.

It’s a racial attack against us.

Mainstream Jewish/liberal media outlet.

Mainstream Negro media outlet.

The so-called “conservatives” – cuckservatives – who want to bury their head in the sand and run away from the race question are some of the worst, most pathetic, sniveling cowards ever to walk the face of the earth.

They are a disgrace to the Founding Fathers that they claim to revere. They have conserved nothing and instead have already lost just about everything that this nation once held dear, and in their cowardice they will only continue losing until even their own genetic legacy is wiped off the map and then scrubbed from the history books.

They are #FakePatriots, and they need to be bullied – mercilessly – until they either join our side or get the hell out of our way.

The main reason these modern-day “conservatives,” patriotards, and the like either take the view that our Founding Fathers weren’t actually racist, or that their racism was just an unfortunate part of our history that thankfully we have now moved past, is because they have been gaslit by the media into thinking being “racist” is the worst thing one could possibly be.

“Racism” has become the absolute moral standard for evil.

This has not been accomplished by logic and debate, but by emotional manipulation and abuse.

The media constantly shows images and sends messages that are meant to induce whites into feeling guilty.

If we controlled the media we could just as easily use pictures of victims of non-white crime and swing people in the exact opposite direction.

In fact, it would be much easier to condition people toward our way of thinking rather than the current way, since racism is the natural and healthy, default position of humans.

Convincing people to go against their own nature requires almost nonstop brainwashing on all fronts, day after day, from cradle to grave – which is what we’ve had in America since the Jews have taken control. Certainly since before I was born; probably before my parents were.

I sympathize with my white brothers, who have all undergone this intense brainwashing, and I understand that playing on guilt feelings is a powerful weakness of whites that has been exploited by our enemies to the fullest – but it’s time to grow some balls. The clock is ticking. We don’t have time to pussyfoot around anymore.

Come over to reality and just admit that America was never intended to be a “proposition nation,” a “melting pot,” or any other such gibberish.

It was never intended to be a multicultural experiment. That crazy idea came much later and is a blatant perversion of what this country was originally envisioned as, and a slap in the face to the great white men who built it.

The “melting pot” idea comes from a play written by the Jew Israel Zangwill in 1908 – well over 100 years after Our Nation’s founding.

Even if the multicultural experiment was created in good faith: at what point do we admit that the experiment is a failure?

We won’t admit it though because now it has become a moral imperative. We are expected to hand over our country to foreigners. Those of us who object to this idea are now unironically referred to as “nazi terrorists.” That’s how far we’ve fallen: “nazi terrorist” is now a legitimate euphemism for “those who don’t want to be replaced by people who hate them in the country that their ancestors built.”

Part of the stated justification for this moral imperative is payback for slavery. Well, the Founding Fathers did not invent slavery – they inherited it. And most of them were against it.

Just about all of the main forgers of America, up to and including Abraham Lincoln, advocated ending slavery and then sending the blacks back to Africa in a humane fashion – not to try and make them our “equals.”

This is also what the Alt-Right wants. Nobody in the Alt-Right is pro-slavery. We just want to be separate so we can live our lives in peace.

Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin and Washington were all White Separatists – White Nationalists.

That is what we who fall under the moniker of “Alt-Right” are as well.

There are inevitably many small differences between us and them, of course, as technology has drastically changed the world since their time and we now have the hindsight to see what worked and what didn’t – but the core tenets remain exactly the same.

If they could see this mess we’re in today, I’ve no doubt they would go back and put measures in place to prevent it all as best they could. They would draft legislation designed to safeguard us – their posterity – from all of this degeneracy, from the dysgenics, from the Jews taking over and from the hordes of non-whites spilling across our borders.

But, of course, they were merely men and not prophets.

They did the best they could.

Now it’s up to us, the only ones who are still truly fighting for the Founders true vision of America, to fix this mess – or die trying.

Anything less and we wouldn’t even be worthy of the title “American.” At this point, unfortunately – most aren’t.

Hopefully, one day soon, they will join us though.

We are the only option left.

These are the undeniable facts:

The Alt-Right is White Nationalism.

White Nationalism is Americanism.

Deal with it.

The current issue of Foreign Affairs published an essay by Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard called “Europe’s Shattered Dream of Order: How Putin Is Disrupting the Atlantic Alliance.” The authors cite a 2014 WIN/Gallup International survey reporting dismal results from respondents regarding the virtue of patriotism in Europe. Only 29 percent of French respondents, 27 percent of Brits, and 18 percent of Germans said they would fight for their country. A shocking 68 percent of Italians said they would positively refuse to defend their nation. (Giuseppe Garibaldi shouldn’t have troubled himself.) Globally, 3/5 of the population would fight for their country. The statistic needs parsing; 77 percent of that 3/5 comes from Middle Eastern and North African regions (MENA). Asian nations are second in willingness to fight for their flags at 71 percent. A meager 25 percent of Western Europeans would fight for their lands. In the U.S., 44 percent of respondents said they would take up arms for our nation. The timing of the survey was intentional, coinciding with centennial remembrances of the Great War. As the dark specter of nationalism casts an increasingly ominous shadow across Asia and Eastern Europe, western Europeans continue to inebriate themselves at the fountain of nihilism.

America’s recruitment prospects also are poor, but for a different reason: obesity. According to Army figures reported by Carol Costello of CNN in April, 10 percent of recruits are disqualified because of obesity. Maj. Gen. Allen Batschelet, commander of Army recruiting, warned that obesity could become a national security threat. Based on current trends, the Army believes that by 2020, only 2 of 10 recruits will qualify because of obesity. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” We are too fat to fight.

Another threat to patriotism is atomization. Contra the vacuous promises of service providers, technology continues to isolate us from one another, sealing us up in self-constructed cocoons of downloaded music and “tweets.” Even movie-going has become an increasingly isolated activity with the advent of “home theater” systems. Americans now value personal rights more than communal safety according to a 2011 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Research survey in which people were asked which they would choose between personal freedoms and protecting fellow citizens from terrorism. 54 percent of respondents prioritized individual rights. Some were fatalistic about it. “If they really want to hit us,” their thinking goes, “they will.” Underlying this attitude is a shirking of responsibility to the community, the very community that provides the opportunities and presumed “rights” these people now demand. In antiquity, each free-born man understood his duty to the polis. This is why even the poor, ill-equipped citizens of Athens marched out against the Persians at Marathon with nothing more than javelins and cutlasses. Europeans should know better. Most potentially world-changing battles were fought on European soil. Two particularly come to mind in light of the survey cited by Krastev and Leonard.

In 490 B.C., Attica, the taproot of western culture, teetered on the brink of destruction. Only Sparta and Athens refused Darius’ tributary demands of earth and water. The rest of Greece bent the knee to Persian power. After sacking Eretria, the Persians beached along the east coast of Attica. Athenian generals convened a war-council on a mountain slope overlooking the plain of Marathon, where the full might of Persian power was visible below. The mere thought of the Persian military struck fear into the hearts of most Greeks. As Sir Edward Creasy wrote in The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, the Persians “had more than once met Greek troops in Asia Minor, in Cyprus, in Egypt, and had invariably beaten them. Nothing can be stronger than the expressions used by the early Greek writers respecting the terror which the name of the Medes inspired…” Athenian leadership was simple and sound, comprised of eleven men; ten generals, elected annually, each governing one of the ten tribes of Athens, and a Polemarch, or War-Ruler, which at this time was a nobleman named Callimachus. The War-Ruler held the honored position of leading the right flank of the Greek formation. He also would cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie among the ten generals. High above the plain of Marathon, five generals voted to give fight to the Persians, five were against. Miltiades, a general who distinguished himself among his peers, exhorted Callimachus to cast the decisive vote.

Though severely outnumbered and without archers or cavalry, the Greeks took swift battle to the Persians, beating them back to their ships. Importantly, the Athenian generals were wise enough to make Miltiades their Commander-in-Chief. His strategic innovations proved indispensable. It’s interesting to note that the Athenian military was comprised of a wide variety of men, including playwrights. Aeschylus fought in this battle. His brother was killed at Marathon attempting to take a Persian ship. The War-Ruler Callimachus was also killed during the attempt to burn or capture the Persian ships after the Athenians had beaten the enemy off the plain. Herodotus reports that 6400 Persians were killed while 192 Athenians were lost. Sir Creasy noted the immense significance of the Greek victory, asserting Marathon “secured for mankind the intellectual treasures of Athens, the growth of free institutions, the liberal enlightenment of the Western world, and the gradual ascendancy for many ages of the great principles of European civilization.”

By 732 A.D., the Saracens had, in Gibbon’s words, achieved “a victorious line of march … prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire.” He notes that repeating the same distance would bring the Saracens into Poland and the Highlands of Scotland. Gibbon concludes his observation sarcastically musing on what may have resulted. “Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford.” It was not to be, thanks to the valor of a patriotic Frank named Charles Martel. Christians might also thank Clotilda, the sixth century Merovingian queen who prayed ceaselessly for the conversion of her husband and king, Clovis I. Clovis received baptism and the land between the Loire and Rhine became Christian. Two centuries later the blossoming flower of Christendom was being squeezed in the vice of pagan German tribes to the north and Islam to the south. Islam crossed the Pyrenees and began subjugating Gaul as it had done Spain. Martel mustered his army of perhaps 1500 men against the Saracen force of 40,000 – 60,000 and, in the prairie between Poitiers and Tours, routed the Muslims and killed their commander Abd el-Rahman Al Ghafiqi.

Charles was no friend of the Church, but he was what the Church needed for its survival. In The Making of Europe, Christopher Dawson asserts Charles “used the abbeys and bishoprics to reward his lay partisans, and had carried out a wholesale secularization of Church property.” Charles and the Merovingians “had done nothing for culture and had only furthered the degradation of the Frankish Church.” Nevertheless, Charles manfully defended Christendom against the onslaught of militant Islam. Tours was the last serious Islamic threat to western Christendom until the seventeenth century in Austria. This was largely due to Charles’ two sons, Pepin and Carloman. It was through these sons of Charles that the secular Merovingian dynasty gave way to theocratic Carolingian rule. Less than 30 years after Martel’s death, his grandson Charles would be crowned king of the Franks. He would go on to become Charlemagne, the inaugural ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles Martel’s valor issued in the Carolingian dynasty, which tended the root of Christendom in the heart of Europe. The cooperation between Carolingian rulers and the Church was, in Dawson’s words, “the source of the whole medieval development of culture.” Such a development never would have occurred if Charles Martel and his men had not sacrificed all to save all.

Europeans today would simply give away these treasures of valor as part of some ill-defined economy of peace. They should consider what happened to the Edonians during Xerxes march to Attica. Though the Edonians had paid tribute, the emperor had nine of their boys and nine girls buried alive in their territory. Hitler remains the example par excellence of what results from Faustian bargains with tyrannical aggressors.

Patriotism is always needed because, unlike jingoism, it is a wholesome virtue. It is so because it requires wisdom and valor, sometimes in heroic measure. In antiquity, the gods expected patriotism. In Book IV of Virgil’s Aeneid, Jove sends Mercury to Carthage with a message for Aeneas, who has settled down into a comfortable life with beautiful Dido, a Tyrian queen. Mercury reminds Aeneas that his mission is not to help establish a Phoenician kingdom in Carthage, but to re-establish the glory of Troy in Latium, despite the risks. Aeneas’ father Anchises appears several times adjuring his son that personal comfort and safety must not supplant fidelity to the memory of those who fell defending their beloved city.

The era of great powers conflict is not over. A Chinese general recently remarked that war with the U.S. “is inevitable.” Vladimir Putin, who has a vastly superior knowledge of history to our president, continues to test the commitment of western nations to the promises they made to each other. Christendom has given way to a secularized Europe. War-councils of wise and brave men have given way to an endless proliferation of impotent councils spawned by that bloated leviathan, the EU, which continues to emasculate itself. Europe will defend nothing because she loves nothing; neither her Church, nor her culture, nor her own children (what few there are).

No reasonable person wants war, but America may yet find herself, like the Athenians at Marathon or the Franks at Tours, in a pivotal moment of truth when the future history of the world hangs in the balance. We will need virtuous leaders and valiant, not corpulent, men who will defend the precious heritage of culture that has been preserved for us by western warriors from Callimachus to the Unknown Soldiers. And, despite the president’s talk of “special relationships” with our “friends” across the Atlantic, we now know we are on our own. The only question is whether or not we’ll be fit to fight. Can America produce another great generation?

The German anti-invasion PEGIDA demonstrations are growing at an exponential rate.  They started off with just 200 supporters a couple of months back, but by last week that had swelled to 10,000 and on Monday an estimated 15,000 patriots showed up to make their presence felt in Dresden.

The Guardian spoke to a few of them:

“Muslims are plotting to infect our food chain with their excrement,” said a man in his 60s, who refused to give his name.

Another, a middle-aged woman in a red leather jacket, said she was shocked that “asylum seekers in Germany have expensive mobile phones, while I cannot afford such luxury and others still cannot afford to eat properly”.

While avoiding blatantly racist slogans, some told the Guardian of their angst over the “demise of the West” due to the rise of Islam or voiced their distaste of salafists and homosexuals in the same breath, or decried the recent decision by local politicians to increase the number of homes for asylum seekers. One group, knocking back bottles of the local beer, talked openly of their fears of what they call “fecal jihad”.

According to the police “Faust des Ostens” (Fist of the East) and Hooligans Elbflorenz (Florence of the Elbe Hooligans) were there, along with members of the NPD, all united in their cause of preventing the country being taken over by foreign barbarians. Far from putting other people off, the presence of the more extreme groups made it possible for families with children to attend, safe in the knowledge that Left-Wing thugs would not dare attack them.

PEGIDA loosely translates to “Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West” and have inspired splinter groups to form all over Germany, with Legida in Leipzig, Bogida in Bonn  and Dagida in Darmstadt.

A recent poll showed that two thirds of Germany feel that Merkel’s government are not doing enough to prevent the invasion and 34% think Germany is being Islamified.

The puppet regime are clearly worried about this manifestation of patriotism, yet just like UKIP, the more they criticize them, the more people support them.

DW.DE:

The emergence of the movement has stunned politicians, one of whom – Ralf Jäger, the Social Democratic (SPD) interior minister for North Rhine Westphalia state – described PEGIDA’s members as “neo-Nazis in pinstripes.” While some neo-Nazis have been seen among the crowds, those gathered have mostly been disenchanted citizens.

More than 1,200 police kept a close watch on the non-violent crowds. Nearby, about 6,000 counter-protesters – made up of civic, political and church groups – marched under the banners “Dresden Nazi-free” and “Dresden for All.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the wave of PEGIDA marches and cautioned Germans against falling prey to xenophobic “rabble rousing.”

In just a couple of weeks the ‘World Cup 2014’ football tournament will kick off in Brazil, the shops and supermarkets are stocked up with cross of Saint George flags, shirts and the chain store Asda (probably Jewish owned) is retailing the ridiculous hooded flag pictured below.

This idiotic piece of crap has caused controversy as the usual bleeding heart Lefties and Liberals say it resembles a Klu Klux Klan outfit and may offend the minorities but that is not what this article is about.

Until England get knocked out of the World Cup (which won’t take long) a lot of English people will be putting English flags in their front windows, on their cars and anywhere else they can hang one whilst sitting at home and in Pub’s watching eleven millionaires that don’t give a f*ck about England (because it’s NOT England anymore) kicking a ball around on TV.

These ‘fans’ will all of a sudden become ‘Patriotic’ and start behaving like lunatics getting drunk and rowdy.

Yes, while their country, culture and race are being destroyed these idiots will all of a sudden for a short time become ‘patriotic’.

The Jew and his traitorous enablers will be pissing themselves laughing at the crass stupidity of the White race.

We, the English-speaking peoples, invented freedom. We gave the world the glorious concept that the law was something bigger than the wishes of the king or the strongest man in the tribe. We taught other nations that the state could be the servant of the citizen, rather than the other way around.

So why do we now shy away from the uniqueness of our achievement? It’s extraordinary that we don’t want to pass on to our children the fact that they are heirs to a sublime tradition.

Personal liberty, the rule of law, representative government: these things are not, as we sometimes like to think, the natural condition of an advanced society.

Jury trials, parliamentary elections, habeas corpus, secure property, legal equality for women: the temptation is to think that all countries will adopt these things when they become rich enough and educated enough.

In fact, these concepts were largely developed in the English language. We call them ‘Western’ to be polite and modest. What we really mean is that they were the values of the Anglo-American system of government.

They became ‘Western’ because of a series of military victories by the English-speaking peoples – what we might call the Anglosphere.

But there comes a point when modesty tips over into self-loathing. Then, we focus obsessively on the bad things we’re supposed to have done, notably our exploitation of colonies, without seeing the bigger picture: how we brought those colonies to independence, in most cases, without a shot being fired in anger; our relentless and selfless campaign against the slave trade; our war against the Nazi tyranny.

Who has done more to spread freedom across the continents? You’d think that Leftists would be proud of this heritage.

In what other civilisation were civil rights so strong? In Africa? Tsarist Russia? Maoist Chin

Like every country, we have had our shameful moments, of course. But when the balance is weighed, few places have contributed so much to the happiness of mankind. The story of freedom is a long one.

It stretches back through the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (when an authoritarian king was toppled in favour of parliamentary democracy) to the Magna Carta (the landmark 1215 document limiting his royal powers).

Right from the days of Anglo-Saxon England, we find peculiar legal and political structures that set this country apart.

For example, inheritance rules favoured the individual over the extended family. Kings were answerable to representative councils, Witans, which on occasion dictated terms to the sovereign. There was no separate aristocratic caste.

Above all, our remote ancestors came up with a legal system whereby the law grew like a coral, case by case, rather than being handed down by the government.

It is a bottom-up rather than top-down system and is therefore the property of the people not the state. Again and again, it has proved a sure defence against tyranny.

The happy accident of Great Britain being an island meant there was no need for a permanent standing army. Taxes were commensurately low, and the government commensurately weak. If the regime needed resources, it had to collect them by consent through the people’s representatives.

It is no coincidence that all the world’s oldest parliaments are on islands: England, Iceland, the Isle of Man, the Faroes. Because the state was weak, the individual was conversely strong.

In terms of the economy, for the first time since farming became widespread 6,000 years ago, it became more rewarding to make or sell things than to seize them from others. Production, as sociologists put it, became more attractive than predatory behaviour.

Social mobility rewarded effort. Prosperity followed. After hundreds of thousands of years of economic flat-lining, the human species took off.

English-speakers carried their unique political culture with them over the seas. The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand formed a common and unique civilisation.

But the ideas could be spread without direct settlement: anyone could buy into them. This is why Bermuda is not Haiti, why Hong Kong is not China, why Singapore is not Indonesia.

Elsewhere, democracy took a different turn, elevating majority rule over individual liberty.

Not surprisingly, our values have come under constant attack.

In the 1930s the democratic-capitalist order was rejected by fascists and communists, who saw it as past its prime. ‘Capitalism has run its course,’ Hitler proclaimed.

Authoritarians of the Left and Right saw individualism as a perversion of the natural order. They believed statist ideologies, which elevated martial vigour, collective endeavour and self-sacrifice, were bound to triumph.

Yet what the Nazis called ‘decadent Anglo-Saxon liberalism’ was not in decline at all. It triumphed in 1945. Two generations later it also saw off the Marxist monolith of the Soviet Union, to emerge as the most successful system on earth.

The tragedy of our present age is that it is now under siege at home.

Having developed the most successful system of government known to the human race, the English-speaking peoples are turning on their own creation.

One vivid illustration of the problem is our approach to Europe.

Ever since I was elected to the European Parliament in 1999, a question has nagged away at me: how many of the EU’s 28 member states have my unshakable commitment to freedom under the law?

The truth is that the rule of law is regularly set aside when it stands in the way of what Brussels’ elites want.

For example, the euro-zone bailouts of countries such as Greece were in blatant defiance of Article 125 of the EU Treaty (which makes it illegal for one member to assume the debts of another).

Yet, as soon as it became clear that the euro wouldn’t survive without cash transfusions, the law was set aside.

To British eyes, the whole process seemed bizarre. Rules had been drawn up but, the moment they became inconvenient, they were ignored. In Brussels, though, objections seemed pernickety, legalistic and altogether very British.

EU laws are initiated by unelected officials. Taxes are levied without popular consent. Power shifts inexorably from elected representatives to standing bureaucracies.

As for the idea that the individual should be as free as possible from state coercion, this is regarded in Brussels as the ultimate Anglophone fetish.

Read More